skip navigation

CrimeSolutions.gov

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
 
NCJ Number: NCJ 165043   Add to Shopping cart   Find in a Library
Title: Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines
Series: NIJ Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice
Author(s): M Tonry
Corporate Author: Abt Associates, Inc
United States of America
Date Published: 1997
Page Count: 71
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America

Bureau of Justice Assistance
US Dept of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America

US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
United States of America
Contract Number: OJP-94-C-007
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Document: Text PDF 
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This report describes and assesses the different approaches used by several States to design coordinated sentencing and intermediate sanctions policies and to implement sentencing guidelines that encompass incarceration, probation, and intermediate sanctions rather than only prison and jail sentences.
Abstract: Increasing numbers of States are using sentencing guidelines and intermediate sanctions. However, major evaluations of boot camps, intensive-supervision probation, and other intermediate sanctions reveal that many new programs do not reduce recidivism, corrections costs, or prison use. Net widening is a central issue. Sentencing guidelines may be the way to eliminate or reduce net widening. To this end, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have recently adopted guidelines systems incorporating standards for the use of intermediate sanctions. The early data from North Carolina suggest that such an approach can be effective. Possible techniques include the provision of more zones of discretion than traditional guidelines contain, the definition of generic punishment units into which all sanctions can be converted, the use of exchange rates between custodial and noncustodial penalties, and the authorization of categorical exceptions. Zones of discretion and categorical exceptions have promising roles in this effort. These techniques represent modest incremental steps toward creating comprehensive sentencing systems. Tables, figures, and chapter notes
Main Term(s): Court reform
Index Term(s): Sentencing reform ; Corrections policies ; Intermediate sanctions
Note: NIJ Issues and Practices
   
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=165043

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.